Hi All,
We are building a new home for the CDI and once it is complete we will finish of the Raiding CDI and move on the GvG CDI.
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ost4575075

We’re looking at a different way to offer CDIs. Fully as welcoming of involvement, but perhaps with a few modifications to normal posts that will allow Chris and his team to more efficiently analyze player input.

This is going to take some time and research, but thanks for sharing your suggestions. I don’t think they derail the thread, because I’ve been reading it, and I can’t tell you how much I like bullet post lists and brief details. (And I don’t even work on this stuff, I’m just an observer. )
[...]

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ng/page/33

Hi,

I am replying to you but talking to all those as well who have been frustrated with the lack of collaboration and maturity in this CDI.

We take the CDI very seriously and it is clear that whilst most CDIs have been extremely valuable and born lots of fruit that the maturity and professional levels required can not be ensured by the guidelines I have set.

I am therefore going to request that the CDI moving forward have its own area where anyone can enter and join in the design sessions but that those who find it hard to focus on the spirit and rules of the CDI can be locked out.

This is the only fair approach because the rules of our forums are different to those of the CDI and thus behavior that would be deemed acceptable on the forums may not be in the CDI and thus one should not be held to the same rules across both areas.

I will update when I have more info. Thanks to all those who participated and followed the rules and please understand that tons of useful info was gleaned and that your efforts were not wasted.

Chris

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ng/page/31

Morning,

Ok I have been up all night reading the posts and thinking about this CDI.

To be frank this is not a good CDI, specifically because whilst some folks are trying to be collaborative and have valuable discussion others are just bullying with their different agendas.

I have always said that if a CDI loses its value on both sides that it will be stopped.

So I am at some what of a loss. I can’t tell anymore if it is of value to this group. Whilst it certainly has been valuable for us it has been extremely time consuming to get to the good stuff.

So I will leave it up to you folks. If you feel you can work more collaboratively then by all means let me know that you want to carry on.

If you feel that it is a lost cause then I will ask for everyone’s top three priorities for raiding and call it a day.

I want to say thank you very much to all those who tried to follow the rules of the CDI and who had a healthy discussion. I also wanted to say a big thank you to TTS and DnT. We appreciate your feedback.

Chris

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ng/page/30

I’m not the one who makes decisions on gear tiers, but it’s very unlikely raids will have a new gear tier with new stats. We would attempt to find other avenues to reward players, and create a sense of progression within the raids instead.

You mention a “raid-focused progression track”. What do you think that might look like?
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ng/page/11

Regarding Agony. Personally I would not want to use it for Raiding. I would like us to focus on the core combat and movement mechanics of the game and then build on that as a foundation to how encounters and mobs interact with the player and group.
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ng/page/22

Entirely up for debate. I’ll use two extreme examples here with some hypothetical made up assumptions:

• A raid could be as small as a singular dungeon path that takes 4 hours to learn, but can be completed in as little as 30 minutes on farm.

• A raid could be as large as the Eternal Battlegrounds with many different paths/encounters that takes upwards of a month(s) to learn, but can be completed in as little as 4 hours on farm.

And ultimately, and here’s a totally crazy idea (because I love brainstorming)… Why can’t raiding be both?

• If we have a singular story to tell, can it just be a one off instance that tells one story and has one final boss at the end (imagine if we rebuilt the Marionette to be a 15 man encounter in a raid instance and that’s the entire instance)?

• If we have a much larger story to tell, can it be a full sized map complete with multiple encounters and hidden areas to explore (imagine if Dry Top was a 15 man instance and you progressed through the map learning the story of how a huge sand storm is coming, and the final boss is some sort of magical sand storm giant that summons chickenados as its minions)?

Hi All,
Please list your top three priorities for raiding (Challenging, Instanced, Cooperative, Content)
Mine are:
1: Knowledge>
2: Skill>
3: Raid Group Setup
I will leave the thread open until folks have had a chance to put there top three forward and then I will put forward a proposal on behalf of the CDI group to the team.
Thanks,
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ng/page/31

Should raids be restricted to the guild level that require some form of guild activity/currency to activate/enter, or should they be accessible by anyone? What are your thoughts on that specific?
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ing/page/6

This is a good question. This is really more of a personal question and the answer is going to differ quite a bit between individuals.

If you want my personal take on this… Raiding for me is a type of end game content I like to partake in with a group of like minded individuals that requires us to master both our classes and the mechanics in the encounter. Nothing in an MMO is more exciting to me than killing a boss we have spent weeks and dozens (if not hundreds) of attempts mastering.

Remember this is just my personal opinion. There are going to be differing opinions in this thread. We want to hear all of them, and not discourage anyone from posting if they think we are going in a direction that is not for them.

So to get back to your question… Let’s assume that because raiding would be a very new type of content for the game that it’s possible for us to re-write the principles of the game that we have seen so far. So having said that where do you feel raiding falls (end game VS horizontal)?

Personally I would also want to see raids as end game content and by that I mean level 80 only.
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ing/page/8

Hey All,

Thanks for being so patient with me. And thank you for what has been the most productive and collaborative CDI to date. Long may it last…

I will be forwarding the link to the design team who have been keeping a watchful eye on our discussion and who will take the info and pertinent discussion and arm themselves with this knowledge as we move forward and evolve the game.

Right so here are the top 5 wishes for Guild Halls if they were to be included in GW2:

CDI Proposal Phase 1: Guilds QOL and Logistics

This is a proposal put together by the CDI group specifically for the Anet development team to read and discuss. This is not a commitment of work.

1: Customization and Identity: The ability to customize your guild hall in a manner that provides your guild with it’s own identity as well as a wide variety of guild hall customization progression.

2: Small Guilds: The ability for small guilds and large guilds to enjoy the progression and benefits of Guild Halls without either making progression to easy or two hard (potentially through scaling)

3: Guild Activities: The ability to progress Guild Halls by taking on activities of varying types with your guild.

4: GvG Access and Functionality: We are discussing this after Raids.

5: Town Convenience: The ability to have town services in the Guild Hall. (I just want to point out that I am not a big fan of this due to the impact it could have on our current Cities.)

I am going to leave the thread open for a while (few hours) and then sticky it on the CDI section at which point we will jump into the next phase discussion Raiding!

Once again thanks to you all. You are great!

Chris

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ls/page/31

On scaling: it is true that we have a certain amount of “magic” scaling in the game, commonly seen in dynamic events. The intent of that system is to keep difficulty consistent across a variety of player counts. The sticking point for myself on raids and scaling is that while we can scale enemies, it is far more difficult to meaningfully scale objectives.

To elaborate, in a 10-player raid, each player is responsible for approximately 1/10 of challenge. As you add players, that challenge share diminishes, so in a 20-player raid, the individual role is about half as important as it would have been with 10 players (challenges of coordination aside).

Of course, group content is rarely so singular and for a good reason. If we have 3 objectives, we divide the focus of the group and your ownership of a 20-player challenge goes from 1/20 to 1/6ish.

Is it possible, then, to just scale objectives along with the player counts? Perhaps. But it seems that would equate to just making many tiers of the content which, to me, sounds like a good way to diminish the total amount of content we could build. What do you guys think?

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ing/page/2

Ok cool let’s start it of then Donari:

Note these are my personal top three priorities:

1: The ability for guild members to be able to show of their prowess and achievements through Guild Halls and their own avatar customization.
2: The ability for players to work together in a fun way to build something different and exciting.
3: The ability for smaller guilds to enjoy guild halls.

Chris

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ls/page/29

Bump.

We will wait a few more days for folks to post their top three priority’s. Could those who are doing summaries please post them (Orpheal and Vod)

Then on Monday I will put our proposal together and then on Tuesday we will begin Phase 3: Raiding!!

Chris

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ls/page/29

To be clear as discussed earlier not having alliances as part of Guild Halls in this discussion does not stop small guilds from being able to progress in this area. The idea for alliances came about in regard to potential faster progression.

There seems to be a lot of confusion about this so for the time being lets take alliances out of the Guild Hall discussion as we are just spinning our wheels.

Chris

Hey Guys,
I’d like to kick of a discussion on scoring in WvW.

Here is a summary of what you guys have brought up in our previous discussions:
•24 hour coverage
       •How do we make play time in off hours valuable without blowing out the score?

•Snowballing
       •How do we give worlds a fighting chance throughout the duration of the match?

•Stagnation
       •How do I feel continuously challenged when my world is ahead?
       •How does my world break the hold that other worlds have on me when I’m behind?

These are all very much related and solutions are not just in one area but I’d like to keep this discussion focused on scoring. Also, if there is another aspect to scoring that we should consider that I’m missing please feel free to bring it up as we kick off this discussion.

We’ve had some great discussions so far and I want to thank you for keeping it constructive and friendly. I’m looking forward to what you guys bring to this discussion too.

Thanks,
John
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/w … sion/first

Great start guys! There are a lot of good ideas already.

Here is a high level summary (not a proposal) of what is currently being discussed:
•Some sort of point scaling based on population or prime time hours
•Break the day into scoring periods. The match is decided on the scoring periods not PPT.
•Consider score for taking objectives either in conjunction with or in place of PPT
•Add score for kills
•Boost the outnumbered buff (in a number of ways)
•Consider adjusting score based on placement
•Adjust score of objectives based on upgrade level
•Create special objectives/achievements that occur when you are behind that give you a special reward for completing them

Someone had a question on this one from Phys that I wanted to answer:
•Break the day into scoring periods. The match is decided on the scoring periods not PPT.

Doing this would greatly buffer runaway score. If it is off hours and one world can cap most everything because of greater coverage they still just win the scoring period rather than rack up triple score all night. It means off hours play time still has value without creating blow outs. In conjunction with some of the other suggestions it has potential. I thought that was a pretty interesting suggestion from Phys.

Lots of great ideas guys, thanks for getting this rolling!

John

Hey Guys,

So from reading through the posts by far the most common proposal is to create some sort of scoring periods. There are multiple different approaches that have been presented but it’s clear that winning scoring periods and tallying up those wins to determine who wins the match is generally accepted as a good way to improve scoring.

Several people suggested keeping the map state across scoring periods so that the investment you make in upgrades and effort you take in conquering objectives but the scores will have far less of a chance of running away when the victory points come from the scoring period not the PPT.

A few other suggestions that came up a bunch were additional scoring opportunities, special goals for servers that are behind, increasing the importance of the outnumbered buff and points per kill. Points per kill had quite a lot of discussion around it.

The video from TeamBattleAxe was also brought up by several people. If you didn’t get a chance to see it, it has some great suggestions about how to create teams that share scores across their matches.

There were a bunch of other really interesting ideas that can’t easily be summarized so if you get a chance you should peruse this thread. It’s full of good suggestions.

A couple of people have said that this discussion is falling into a pattern of general consensus. It certainly does seem like a few good ideas have emerged from this. I’ll keep my eye on the thread a little longer in case anything else comes up.

Thanks for taking the time to engage in this discussion!

John

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/w … ost4477498

this is a great point. I have not explicitly said what the box is on purpose but I’m happy next week to take an idea and really ask all the hard questions to try to boil it down more so that you can all see how this works more clearly on our end. One thing is the constraints we have are rarely what you all imagine they might be so I think it will be good to break down an actual problem that way.
Jon
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ls/page/15

Actually it hasn’t been talked about at all. I’ve seen a lot of basic suggestions, but what I am suggesting is that we flesh something out here in this thread. I’m choosing the upgrade system because someone actually started breaking it down. I think the first question(s) I have is:
Are the current upgrade categories the ones we would use or would we break it up differently? If not, how many categories would you think make sense? Specifically what would your categories be?
Jon
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ls/page/16

I think one solution to the scaling problems is to create different aspects that work on different scales. For example some aspects can be time gated and therefore don’t favor any size guild. Some can be based on straight up farming which favor larger guilds, and some could be driven by activity and favor guilds with active members. Think of it like the 3 branches of government, and the aspects within that. The senate favors states, the house favors population (or gerrymandering at least  ), etc…
I think in that way the question that comes to mind is what parts of Guild Halls would you want to have work in what different ways so that we can reward big guilds for those areas but not punish small guilds for the things they really want…
Jon

I’ll chime in a bit here. It is a good question. I think there would be some conflict here but that there would also be some technical wiggle room. I think we can safely assume that 500 players from a guild being logged in is not the common case. What is a “reasonable” maximum # of members in the guild hall to you? 150? 200? 400?
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ls/page/17

My box is guild upgrades. I want us to brainstorm how we could revamp the upgrade system given the introduction of a feature such as guild halls.
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ls/page/18

Morning All,
Due to recent events I must confess that I am only properly knowledgeable up to roughly page 12 but I want to jump in and start discussing things with you. I hope that is ok.
I want to emphasize that my questions, thoughts, and brain storming are theoretical and should not be taken as a given. With that said I want to start at the foundation.
Ok lets assume that in the world of the CDI Guild Halls have a lot of horizontal progression such as the ability to create buildings, upgrade them and customize the whole experience. What is the smallest guild size that this would be suitable for. Even more specifically is it ok to have a ton of progression in this Guild Hall example and have small guilds work through it.
An idea I wanted to throw into the mix would be could small guilds have a shared Guild Hall with an Alliance?
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ls/page/17

All good points and this one is very valid:
‘I think, for smaller guilds, the basic bonuses should be obtainable easily. Examples like a guild armorer merchant or something. But the bigger, longer, and higher stuff should stay the bigger and longer. Yes, big guilds will reach it faster than smaller guilds, but that’s the nature of the beast. Bigger guilds are going to get to the bigger and better stuff sooner.’
This is also a very acute point:
‘As for guild alliance halls. They could work, and would be neat. The only issue would be, what happens if the alliance breaks apart? who gets the hall?’
Initial thoughts are that members of the Alliance would each get an instance of the shared guild hall. And yes I am aware I said instance. This is purely because I am a fan of instance over open world (-:
Chris

FYI I would not put a hard gate on number of guildees required for Guild Hall creation. That is my personal opinion.
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ls/page/18

Hi,
GvG will be discussed after we discuss raiding.
Thanks,
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ost4469798

As stated many, many times before, absolutely nothing in the CDI’s should be taken as a promise of any feature to come. These are simply here for us to talk with the developers over ideas we have for the game, nothing more.

Correct Inquisitor

Chris

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ls/page/13

Hi Collaborators,

Once again congrats on what is probably the most professional, and collaborative CDI to date. It is an absolute pleasure to read and the discussion and team approach to problem solving is frankly on par with many design team’s best working practices that I have experienced in the past.

I am up to page 11 and have skimmed through the rest. There is clearly still a lot of discussion to be had and frankly when a CDI is this good there is no point rushing things.

I am going out with my family today and will be joining the discussion tomorrow.

Meanwhile here are some articles about the fine work you are doing:

http://massively.joystiq.com/2014/10/03 … ild-halls/

http://www.tentonhammer.com/editorial/g … uild-halls

I hope you are all having a lovely weekend and I am looking forward to chatting with you all tomorrow.

Chris

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ls/page/13

Something I haven’t seen much discussion on that I thought would be interesting. Not saying you have to go this way but.

What current aspects of guilds would you change to integrate them more with guild halls? If you would change something, how would you change it to work more with a physical Guild Hall?

Jon

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ls/page/14

I don’t remember saying locked. I said how would you change some of the current functionality to be more integrated with guild halls? I don’t think functionality has to go away to do this and I’d like to see what value you all might envision a guild hall could bring to things like Guild Missions, the current Guild upgrade system, etc.

Jon

Desirable
• Previous game development experience creating the following: large scale bosses and encounters, repeatable group content for a live game, large scale rewards systems, combat systems for multiple players

We will be discussing ideas around Guild Raids
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ost4393615

Hi All,
Just wanted to let you know that we will be discussing raiding in the next phase of the Guild CDI. Feel free to carry on discussing here, and just wanted to let you know that i am reading this thread.
Chris

Halls de Guilde

Que sont-ils ?
   Peuvent être un bâtiment sur une île flottante, un dirigeable, un bâtiment dans une instance distincte ou un bâtiment sur un carte principale (ex : terrains à bâtir).

Comment sont-ils ?
  Le souhait exprimé dans de nombreux messages est que les halls de guilde doivent être personnalisable. Nous ne connaissons pas l'étendue des possibilités de personnalisation, mais l'idée générale va de la "mise à niveau" du hall de guilde par diverses méthodes à la construction entière de ce dernier "bloc par bloc".

Ce qui est certain, c'est que nous voulons que ce soit une nouvelle forme de progression pour les guildes, qui devrait pouvoir être obtenu par diverses méthodes, très diversifiées, à la manière dont les guildes peuvent être elle-mêmes diverses (petites ou grandes, orientées pve ou pvp).

Qui devrait être en mesure d'en acquérir ?
Les opinions varient. Certains (les petites guildes) veulent des halls de guilde sans impôt, sans coût de maintenance, ou sans frais lié au mérite. D'autres veulent que ce soit des récompenses de long terme, nécessitant un effort organisé, demandant par exemple de rassembler des ressources variées via les différents modes de jeu (ex : utiliser les parcours de récompenses pvp pour rassembler des ressources), et qui devrait avoir un coût d'entretien et être un moyen de montrer aux autres la puissance, l'organisation et le dévouement d'une guilde. Les halls de guilde pourrait aussi relever du prestige.
[...]

Quelles autres choses les halls de guilde devraient ajouter au jeu ?
Ce qui est le plus souvent mentionné, est que les halls de guilde Halls doivent ajouter de la commodité en plus d'être un lieu de rencontre, comme par exemple : un accès à la banque de guilde, des armuriers, un lieu de réparation... Certaines personne ne sont pas favorable à l'ajout de stations d'artisanat dans les halls de guilde et ce pour ne pas dépeupler les grandes villes, ainsi certains services devrait rester exclusifs à certains endroits.

D'autres systèmes plus complexes sont également évoqués :  arènes pour les duels, mini-jeux, nouvelles activités liées à la guilde. Et ces ajout devrait aussi être optionnel -toujours dans l'optique de différenciation des guildes existantes et de leur besoins.

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … lls/page/7

Hi Tor,
This is beyond scope but thanks for asking. This said players should absolutely be able to customize their Guilds Hall.
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … lls/page/8

From my point of view i think that Guild Halls personifies pride in your guild and that means any chance you get to where your colors is an opportunity for expression. So in my opinion it would be cool to have items that advertise your guild and status.
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ls/page/11

On the editing topic I’ve seen a few things listed.

• NPCs

• fixed placement

• grid placement

• free form placement

• upgrading placed things

Assuming everything has a cost:
Some questions with sample answers:
Q: what kind of thing would you be ok with static placement?
A: a giant stone carving of Colin.
Q: What kind of things do you think work fine with grid placement?
A: A theatre where my guild can roleplay how angry we are with the guild hall system in game.
Q: What stuff would you want to have free placement?
A: Statue of Chris Whiteside

Jon

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ls/page/10

I wanted to dig into the instanced vs non-instanced debate a bit. Here are 4 questions I’ll pose:

• What do people see as the benefits of instanced?

• What do you see as the benefits of open world guild halls?

• How could we get the benefits of instanced guild halls in a system of open world guild halls?

• How could we get the benefits of open world guild halls in a system where guild halls are instanced?

Jon

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ls/page/10

Going to quote myself for some clarity here. I have some answers to these questions that I will try to get down here but see if you can be specific. I’ll try to give examples and I hope you understand that this is probably even more blue sky than what you are thinking but I want to set the bounds of how crazy a system COULD be, not what is technically feasible.

Benefit of instanced: Your guild could control permissions on the map.
Benefit of open world: Your guild could control and improve something in the world that benefits more than just its members.
Benefit of instanced that we could get in an open world system: Guild Halls are air ships that attach to places in the world improving that area for a while, but move around and have many attachment points. Access to the ship itself is controlled, but you still are in the open world.
Benefit of open world that we could get in an instanced system: Guild Halls are still halls but have functionality that lets guild create temporary content that attach to open world maps.

The point of this question is to first generate wild ideas before discussing details of those designs and figuring out what problems/edge cases those details create that must be solved.

Jon

Hey guys,

It’s been an incredibly busy week for me and I’m not fully caught up yet but I am noticing patterns in the posts that I have been able to read. A lot of people are also saying that they can’t keep up so I think it is a good time to close this discussion out.

I think we have some good general ideas for me to take back to the team and discuss their feasibility. Thanks again for another constructive discussion. This has been incredibly informative!

I agree with those of you who have pointed out that population imbalance is just one aspect that needs to be adjusted and that the overall solution isn’t just in one area. So I’d like to kick off a discussion on scoring next week.

See you then!

John

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/w … ce/page/23

We will have a CDI phase on GvG.
Chris
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … alls/first

Hey Guys,
Just a quick note to let you know I’m not dead I took a day off to celebrate a birthday for a special little dude in my life. Now I’m back and waaaaaay behind!
I’ve had some thoughts based on some feedback you guys have given on the proposal I posted. I’m going to try to get caught up on this thread then see how we can adjust things to cover some concerns.
John
Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/w … ce/page/20

Hi All,

Thank you for being so patient with me, the awesome discussion and brain storming as well as doing some of the logistical work on the CDI (I appreciate this more than you can know)

There have been a huge amount of proposals and these have been compiled by Drakth to your favorites through the 1,2,3 priority system. The proposal below covers the Top 12 features, and evolutions you would like to see. I will be forwarding the link to the design team who have been keeping a watchful eye on our discussion and who will take the info and pertinent discussion and arm themselves with this knowledge as we move forward and evolve the game. The full list can be found here:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/864 … 20CDI.xlsx

CDI Proposal Phase 1: Guilds QOL and Logistics

This is a proposal put together by the CDI group specifically for the Anet development team to read and discuss. This is not a commitment of work.

More detail on each feature/evolution can be found (Thank you so much for doing this Orpheal):

https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … ost4419141

1: Alliances: The ability for guilds to ally and work together to progress through the main guild activities in GW2.

2: Guild Calendar: The ability for guilds to through customization of the in the calendar tool organize their events and activities.

3: Guild Halls: The ability for guilds to have halls that allow them to make a statement about their Guild and customize their halls. Guild Halls would also bring activities for guilds with the CDI groups wanting to see GvG be part of this (GvG will have it’s own phase in the broad CDI about Guilds. The CDI group also wants to see Guild Rewards that advertise their guild and make them stand out such as Guild Capes.

4: Multi-Guild Chat Window: A way for players to easily see chat in the other guilds they are part of and switch to that chat channel with out making the social UI panel to busy.

5: MOTD/Bulletin Board: A system that displays the MOTD when the player logs in and display the MOTD on a bulletin board where other player’s can post about info pertaining to their Guild Mates.

6: Guild wide messaging/mail system for leaders: A system that allows those with the appropriate permissions in their guild to mail their guild mates as we all as a separate mail system and channel for guild leaders.

7: Guild Bank, Security and Functionality: Increased functionality (Accessibility etc) for Guild Bank and Security (permissions etc)

8: Guild Chat Upgrades: Alliance chat, officer chat, profession chat and much more!

9:Roster Improvements/General Guild Improvements: Too much to summarize please see Orpheal’s CDI Summary link above.

10: Guild Recruiting tools:: Recruiting tools allowing those with permissions to better manage the logistics of Recruitment as well as functionality for better exposition of recruit status etc.

Note there are in fact 31 proposals put forward but as discussed I am only listing the top ten.

I am going to leave the thread open for a while (few hours) and then sticky it on the CDI section at which point the much anticipated deep dive into Guild Halls will begin!

Once again thanks to you all. You are great!

Chris

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/g … OL/page/20

I was about to toss out the exhaustion idea altogether because of the legitimate concerns of small groups that a good number of you have brought up but this post gave me another perspective on it. I’m going to merge some of the ideas you guys have put forth into a new iteration on the design you and I have been working out.

Here is the new proposal based on your ideas:
Siege Dismantling

• You DO NOT get exhaustion from placing siege

• If you own a piece of siege:
          • There is a skill on the skill bar called “Dismantle” that will drop the timer down to one minute

• If you do not own a piece of siege:
          • There is a skill on the skill bar called “Vote Dismantle”
          • If a piece of siege gets 5 votes:
                • The timer on the siege drops to 5 minutes
                • The player who placed the siege gets a stack of exhaustion
                         • In this proposal this is the only way to get exhaustion[/*

• When a siege timer is reduced to 0 it is dismantled
          • All siege that is dismantled drops 25% of the supply it took to construct

Exhaustion

• A player who has 5 stacks of exhaustion can no longer place siege until they have 0 stacks of exhaustion

• A stack of exhaustion is removed:
          • After 5 minutes
                • For commanders this time is reduced by 2 minutes for each member of your squad for up to 20 minutes
          • For each enemy player defeated
          • For each objective taken

This proposal has these properties:

• Play is not affected at all for anyone unless they repeatedly place siege that is repeatedly voted down

• Players are encouraged to clean up their siege to get a refund and to prevent their siege being voted down

• Players can police themselves by voting down bad siege

• Players who get exhaustion incorrectly can easily remove it by playing WvW normally

• The more siege that gets placed that is left unattended the easier it will be to lose the privilege of placing siege.

• Commanders who actually have people following them can bypass the bulk of the penalty and should easily remove the rest through normal play

For other topics, there seems to be general agreement that some sort of labeling or filtering will help with siege that is dropped onto the area you are trying to build in. Also, I agree that build sites could have a smaller footprint.

Again there were a lot of really good suggestions! I am reading every single post in this thread (and you guys are keeping me busy ) so I really appreciate those of you who have stayed constructive, on topic and within the guidelines that were set down. It is really helping us think out possible ways together of how we could address this problem in a way that would work for everyone.

So now…

ROUND THREE … DISCUSS!

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/w … ion/page/7

You guys beat me to it. After last week’s positive discussion on siege trolls I wanted to bring up the topic of population imbalance and ideas that you have on it.

There are a couple of ideas already going in this thread:

• population caps

• merge servers

• Battle Groups

I’d like to join in this brainstorm with some questions on these. For merging servers, how do we determine who gets merged? Where would we merge them to? How do we maintain any sort of world pride or identity they have? How do we handle potentially merging with your mortal enemies?

For population caps, how do we deal with the longer queues on the worlds that can field enough people? If it is dynamic, would players be able to manipulate it? For example, our world is ahead so we all agree to not play WvW so the other worlds are capped down and can’t counter us.

For Battle Groups, Asglarek mentioned more details are on the way. I’d love to hear more.

I’m approaching this as a brainstorm. The topic is “Approaches to correcting overall population imbalance”. I know there is a related topic of 24 hour coverage but I’d like to keep that as a separate conversation for now.

Please keep this friendly, constructive and on topic. We had a really good discussion on the siege troll thread I’m hoping we can kick around some ideas and have another great discussion here. Feel free to add additional ideas that I didn’t list out but please make sure they are on topic.

Thanks,
John

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/w … ance/first

Yowzers that was a lot to read! You guys have been busy. I dropped that line that I needed to get caught up and then the size of this thread more than doubled! I’ll apologize in advance for not calling out who some of the ideas in this post are coming from but there were too many posts to keep it all straight.

There are a number of great ideas circulating attacking the problem from different angles and with varying levels of magnitude of change. One note though, I really feel that scoring is a separate issue that needs to be addressed on it’s own. We will discuss that one after we wrap this one up. Even if we were to overhaul the scoring system population imbalance will still be an issue.

From reading through this thread I think we can agree on the following goals:

• We want a thriving and vibrant WvW community in each world. That is to say, we want people to play with and against.

• We want to continue to play with our friends and the communities that we have developed already.

There were a number of other goals but I think those are the two big ones. I’m going to combine a number of your ideas to attempt to address this problem with a proposal and see what you guys think.

First off, as many of you have pointed out, it will be impossible to create equal populations without moving people around. As several others have pointed out we don’t want to break apart communities. This has been a really tough one for all of us. I know all about server pride. At the risk of having people scream “MATCH THREAD” and red card me off the forums, I’ll let you know that I have been known to pipe up in meetings with “SBI TILL I DIE” because it’s where I play with my friends and family members. So I’ve had the same reaction that many of you had when merges have come up in discussion. Through Adopt-A-Dev I’m now repping the DR crowd and I’ve learned that these guys on DR don’t all have three heads and eat puppies (unless they are really cool) and while it did feel a little dirty to fight SBI last week it was still great fun.

Anyway, this discussion made it clear it is who you play with that’s important and a number of ideas in this thread preserved that without restricting the number of people who could play at a time. These have had a number of names but for the sake of discussion I’ll go with Alliances. The idea that I liked for Alliances is that it is a group of guilds and people that are guaranteed to stay together no matter how things are rearranged. There would probably need to be a size limit on Alliances and several of you pointed out that whatever limits are put in place it should be based on WvW participation.

A few of you noted that things will always be changing over time so the system would have to be dynamic. There are a couple of ways of addressing this discussed in this thread. An idea that would be a small incremental change to how the game plays would be to create a new set of worlds then fill them up with our Alliances of guilds and players that are guaranteed to always play together. This would happen at regular intervals, the intervals were all over the map as were the size of the worlds in this thread so I will propose this cadence:

• Off Season

• Tournament

• Restructure
    • Create new Worlds
    • Redistribute Alliances

This cycle would take a few months given the cadence of tournaments we have had which is about the time that we would want to rebalance populations. After the restructure, players could transfer like they do now if they so desired.

Alliances would provide continuity for the community. I see the server pride of today becoming Alliance pride because of that continuity. But I also see the off season as a time for the newly formed world of alliances to develop their own identity as they head into the tournament. Keep in mind that if an alliance was big enough to fill a world that mapping becomes one to one. If that became the case maybe the world could just take the alliance name. It’s interesting because that time together gives everyone involved a chance to see if they all want to ally together to truly solidify into a world. If not, you are still playing with your community for the glory of your alliance in the next restructure. But your community would be playing with other communities new to you and maybe this new bunch is a better fit for you and an opportunity for your alliance to grow.

The pieces for this idea comes from a number of posts in this thread. There are also some thoughts in there from some discussions I’ve had with several guild leaders. I just glommed it all together into something that I think could be a workable solution. I do want to emphasize though that this is all brainstorming

Let me know your thoughts and thanks again for all the great and constructive discussion!

John

Source : https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/w … ce/page/10